/lit/ - Literature

>>21758417
I only read Marx , Engels and Lenin; and they make a lot of sense to me.

>>21758417
How exactly is "dictatorship of the proletariat" supposed to turn into "le heckin based free sóy for everyone gommunism" again?

Marx's prediction of industrialized workers rising up in a general strike never happened and never will happen. Lenin and Mao did what Marx never dreamed of, waging revolutions in pre-industrial countries and then rapidly industrializing them through a strong central government.

Anti-tankie "Marxists" are the ultimate in cope.

>>21758453
They were already industrializing and would have probably done that anyway. You guys are such larpers.

>>21758436
>my only understanding of communism comes from a pamphlet written to rile up peasants, and animal farm.

>>21758488
Sure, just like the South was going to abolish plantation slavery any day and give up all its profits to the North's cotton mills, right?

>>21758508
>I can't answer the question so I indirectly call you a poo poo

>>21758417
Marxists peaked in early 1900s with Sorel and maybe Lenin. Each generation gets progressively more retarded and there were already many retards like Zetkin during that time. I guess Marxism is more self destructive than capitalism.

>>21758436
Leftists falsifying Marx for their own political ends was happening when the man was still alive and will likely continue until the end of capitalism.

>>21758436
"critique of the Gotha programme" answers this very question.

>>21758417
>Lenin, Stalin and Mao probably didn't understand Marx
No shit they didn't understand Marx, they were out in the world doing things.

Marx was not a theorist, Marx was essentially an economic prophet, and reality has completely proven his 'predictions' to be utter bullshit. Instead of just admitting this though, the current batch of Marxists go full religious fundamentalist, insisting that Stalin and Mao was really just 'state capitalism' and that we just didn't believe in communism hard enough.

It's all very sad, really

> smoker a has 3 lighters
> smokers b and c have no lighters
> smokers b and c have no lighters because smokers a has three lighters
This is your brain on bmarsism

>>21758603
>critique of the Gotha programme
QRD?

>>21758488
>They were already industrializing
>would have probably done that anyway
>You guys are such larpers.
kek

No need to answer, I won't open this thread again

>>21758417
That's what you get for being a jew trying to figure out the human condition. Their reductionism and utter inability to understand the foundation on which productive civilisations are standing result in corruptive influence every time. It's simply impossible to force jewish thought on white people without reducing them to animal cattle. Parasitic survivalist mentality is harmful for creative cultires. The same thing with Freud and Horkheimer.

>>21758799
>be like 1/8 jewish by blood
>this somehow affects someone's entire worldview
Also, you're guilty of what you charge Marx with. You're reducing everything to muh jooz. Who has the simplistic worldview now, faggot?

>>21758854
>jewish by blood
>Christian by blood
>muslim by blood
Are you that retarded to fall for the Zionists false psyop?

>>21758436
by expropriating the possessing classes it turns everyone into proletarians. and once everyone is proletarian, nobody is proletarian anymore because there are no class distinctions, which entails a communist society
>>21758453
>Lenin and Mao did what Marx never dreamed of, waging revolutions in pre-industrial countries and then rapidly industrializing them through a strong central government
lol have you ever tried reading the Manifesto? Germany in 1848 was basically pre-industrial, and the program in the Manifesto was a program for industrialization:
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
>8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
>9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

>>21758854
He was raised as a jew by jews. What's that about reductionism? Do you think this is more important than my point? Well, saying a jew thinks like a jew doesn't mean that I exclude influences of his era, in fact, it's already known that jews before that could not have so much influence. And Marx was influenced by Hegel. He just didn't posess the understanding of how society of white people can be made stable. By the way, your implication, that you didn't voice, about people not being affected by their race is reductionist itself.

>>21758876
>by expropriating the possessing classes it turns everyone into proletarians. and once everyone is proletarian, nobody is proletarian anymore because there are no class distinctions, which entails a communist society
If you try to expropriate the possessing classes they will just skip the country and take their riches with them.
Once everyone is proletarian, one of them realizes how stupid his peers are and creates a totalitarian monopoly under the pretense of fighting capitalist spooks from the west. Because there are "formally" no class distinctions (there are, moron), the village idiots are unwilling or unable to fight back.

>>21758882
>If you try to expropriate the possessing classes they will just skip the country and take their riches with them.
they won't take means of production with them, and wherever they escape they'll find another proletarian dictatorship
>Once everyone is proletarian, one of them realizes how stupid his peers are and creates a totalitarian monopoly
pure fanfiction to liberal ideology. a person can't just "create" a totalitarian monopoly

>>21758417
Hey, Marx enthusiast here. I believe his work is formidable and spot-on occasionally, and unnervingly acute too. I wouldn't bet my money on him not making mistakes, but if you read into him you can glimpse a lot into capitalism. Doubly so if you are a materialist... I believe many people that consider themselves smart can't appreciate him because of their previous dogmas and ways to structure the world they live in.

That being said, boy is he outdated. Marx lays an impressive (and pretty thorough) foundation on economics that reeks of modernism. If you're wondering whether to read him, Spinoza is good to tackle before (both the tractatus and his ethics)... Marx may not mention it much but it is kinda foundational to his materialist dialectics. Also he is an economist founder, so his work is also loaded in ethics (as is any economic treatise that proposes a system) but since his work is written to get to the wide majority (people that own lots of factories and such can still read him to understand stuff but most of his ideas useful for bourgeoisie are already taught in any basic econ class) you can usually understand his point since you've seen it happen time and again.
I respect him most as a reporter and writer. His early stuff is kinda meh, lots of idealism and plays of words. If you don't know shit about Marx or aren't that much of an autist, just read 18 brumaire and you'll see why his method and theoretical framework are respected and used.

Also decent marxists (from my perspective): luxemburg (econ), lenin (political), trotsky (both but mostly econ), gramsci (pol), foucault (inb4 hes not a marxist), today is kinda shitty but Graeber and Deleuze would be my go-to if you've read Marx (graeber for political implications, deleuze for full blown schizoids and autists). They're not strictly Marxists but somehow postmarxists which is kinda better IMO. Zizek is interesting if you like psychology, and there's this chinese or korean guy that I always forget and haven't read, I think his name is byul yung chan or something idk


>>21758417
People devoid of political power oftentimes dream of being powerful and thus project madly into "great men" aka people that wielded supreme executive power. There's the whole virtue signaling too, and the fact that those three at least allegedly tried to close the gap to communism in a political revolution, and found themselves again in the same game as most other bourgeois revolutions (trotsky has some interesting works in this regard since he had to criticize stalin from mexico).

>>21758453
Lenin and Mao both wielded the State like a bourgeois would have, because the Menshevik criticism of "the means of production aren't developed enough" was actually valid and dismissed too quickly because it was reformist (which it was). Lenin didn't get to really use the State. He died soon and his will for the USSR was ignored.

I'll stay in the thread a bit, AMA.

>>21758894
>they won't take means of production with them
They'll take their money, which will secure them their means of production elsewhere
>and wherever they escape they'll find another proletarian dictatorship
Tankies unironically think that every country in the world will simultaneously go gommunist and pingpong rich people between each other. My fucking sides
>pure fanfiction to liberal ideology. a person can't just "create" a totalitarian monopoly
Correct, that's why the person is usually an army general

>>21758882
>the village idiots can't fight back
ever heard of vietnam

>people will leave with their riches
that's only if the government (or whatever entity is regulating capital in that specific area) allows them to. this is not perceived as tyrannical when a capitalist states says so (ireland a couple of years ago)

>once nobody owns factories people will start doing it again
unless it's outlawed? people used to own people before. so what?

>>21758881
not the guy talking to you up to this point, but all models are reductionist. your point is moot or weird since you're not providing examples, just ranting.
>marx was a jew
he was also an atheist, what is your point here? people rant against jews in 4chan like they're devils in disguise or something, but have you ever considered that it may depend on each particular person and you ought to make a more nuanced approach? or do you consider all catholics and islamists pedos and all chinese taoists?
I love criticizing Marx as much as anybody else does but please make your fucking criticism instead of complaining of him being a jew or a german or a male. Try reading a book and then using examples and counter examples of his actual work like a normal human being pls

just to be clear, i'm calling you a faggot and a poser. I'm pretty sure that you can't muster valid criticism of Marx and if you even tried you'd have to check other sources because you can't even bring yourself to read a short book of his.

>>21758967
I'm not going to wate my time on critiquing Marx. I said what I wanted to say. If you cannot understand it and don't know what I'm referring to, it's your problem. You're stupid.

>>21758967
>ever heard of vietnam
Fight back against their governing junta, not against suicidal burgers
>that's only if the government (or whatever entity is regulating capital in that specific area) allows them to
Because sitting on a private jet and flying over the atlantic is difficult, especially when you already have intel that gommunism is about to happen
>unless it's outlawed?
Then the state will own the factories. Commie state = effectively a private company with unlimited power that makes up its own rules
>people used to own people before. so what?
What the fuck are you smoking

>>21758973
>You're stupid.
Says more about you than him lol

>>21758967
>he was also an atheist
You are correct; he wasn’t jewish, but, atheist. People on 4chan fall for old lies and propaganda of 16th century Europe.

>>21758991
15th century *

>>21758973
>da joooos
>asked about what he means
>i wont waste my time explaining
thought so, been nice yo know ya buddy

>>21758976
>fly away
granted that rich people would rather dump all their stuff into an ocean that see other people using it, I don't understand why that would be a defense of capitalism but w/e
people cant take away most of the valuable stuff. money is not that useful.

>state capitalism
valid critique, definitely something to be careful about. still, not all communities needed a capitalist state to handle their social surpluses and capital. if you're interested in exchanging ideas about going around this it's a lengthy but interesting debate. i'm not really willing to go into it just for the lulz since english is my third language and this can get tiresome for the both of us
also a capitalist state also makes up its own rules, i can't see the point in that

>ppl owned ppl b4
my point is, some forms of private property were abolished and haven't returned in any form of large scale (unless you're willing to go down the marxist rabbit hole of wage slavery)
it's really confusing that i had to explain that. did i write it that badly? how would you have worded it? i struggle with english occasionally
also i'm smoking marihuana right now

>>21758995
to be fair, it's been around for longer but it has definitely been in those centuries

>>21758929
>AMA
go back to >>>/r/eddit.

>>21759015
>rich people would rather dump all their stuff
Curse those rich people and their polluting ways!
>people cant take away most of the valuable stuff. money is not that useful.
Send me all your money then, I can provide you a used bicycle lmao
>definitely something to be careful about
Yeah, the best preventative measure is to avoid gommunist bullshit.
>still, not all communities needed a capitalist state to handle their social surpluses and capital
Maybe if you're a tribe in Congo with 20 people
>also a capitalist state also makes up its own rules, i can't see the point in that
Whataboutism, not an argument. USA being a borderline fascist state doesn't absolve commies
>my point is, some forms of private property were abolished and haven't returned in any form of large scale (unless you're willing to go down the marxist rabbit hole of wage slavery)
Except wage slavery is absolutely a thing, and it's neither marxist nor capitalist but statist.
>also i'm smoking marihuana right now
Marihuana smoking was outlawed in the USSR. t. ex-USSR

>>21758666
He was just wrong about the expiration date of Capitalism. That's where they all got it wrong, none of them realized how truly pervasive Capital was.

>>21758417
The problem with Marx is that all his historical materialism and his class conflict based ideology is inherently flawed, class conflict is not only discriminatory to the peasants, taking in account only urban industrial workers, unless you use Maoism which is shit.
He openly wishes for violent revolution, which i cannot support, violence sometimes is necessary, but class conflicts will always remain so that would make it needless violence, violence must be used responsibly, now i believe that class conflict will always remain because classes are not defined just by their material means, considering that our reality is not only a material one but also a emotional and spiritual reality, people do all sorts of irrational and non materialistic things all the time, thus even if material conditions were as equal as possible, and class distinction was removed in the material sense by everyone being a proletariat, power hierarchisation will always, remain, and thus classism and hierarchy will always be the norm regardless of material conditions, there are only two possible solutions, anarchism, which is practically non functional and will be quickly destroyed by any organized rival, or class collaboration, from which we recognize that classes exists and that is not a bad thing, but they must rejoice in fraternity, and work towards a common good, benevolence from the upper classes, and obedience by the lowers, mediation of the middle classes, and negotiation as a whole, with the chance of always climbing the hierarchy if the merit allows it.

>>21758417
You will never own the means of production.
You will never have free healthcare.
You will never have UBI.
You will never have free housing.
You will never raise the USSR flag over Russia again.
You will never raise the Berlin Wall again.
You will never have world revolution.
You will never have world communism.
You will never be a party leader or member of a Marxist-Leninist state.
You will never obliterate religion.
You will never defeat NATO.
Bernie Sanders will never be president.
You will never pay off your student loans.
You will never have free college.
You will never be a woman or pass as one.

choose your fighter, /lit/

>uh you need to write me a full critique of Communist Manifesto which I will dismiss anyways
>what? you don't want to? haha you lost

>>21759051
there was this one quote i love of him but i cant remember rn, it boiled down to "every social system will exhaust all means of existence, every possible combination, before giving away and collapsing", which I think explains his stance rather directly. I think he expected capital to develop more quickly but didn't expect that big of a repressive apparatus, used against itself expressing political and economical disarrangement; but rather an acceleration to world revolution. Bourgeois national states sure have been capable of slowing advance of material conditions through veiled but still approved imperialism.

>>21759072
/thread

>>21759041
>pollution wtf
i meant as dispose of bro but also fuck enviromental dmg
>gib moni
thats just a pun, you understood. I meant money isn't useful in itself but only as society sees it as useful. You'll probably find out that with dollars in your lifetime. I also live in Argentina, which is a country that has pretty much all it needs and then some, just not that big but that's kind of a plus sometimes. point taken in "you need social relations to get access to international production" but american hegemony is slowly fading and we're already seeing BRICS emerge and helping (for some reason) other countries
>gommi bad
dude you admit living in a borderline fascist country where living is getting harder to live in each month like it hasn't in a while for most of its population
>non capitalist monke
if you've got some definition or characterization for a list of places in history that you consider are worthy of discussion, and we can discuss whether thats a good way to measure it but this is just weak and dodgy
maybe I just don't think political and economical order is eternal and will remain changing. u still into fukuyama or just grasping straws?
>whatabautism
you literally complain about people deciding rules using you as a weird pawn by defending that same thing. i'm not a retard asking for a new king.
>wagies are staties
so you use class theory but your own better way
sure bro
pls elaborate
>mustache bad
many nuance such analytical wow

are you dense?

This plebbitor is a spic too.

>>21759015
I don't listen to kikes, sorry.

Stalin and Mao weren't Marxists. Read Marx and Lenin before starting a shit thread

>>21758417
Because people don’t admire theorists but men of action, for good or ill.

>>21758666
>reality has completely proven his 'predictions' to be utter bullshit.
lol? how?

>>21759437
Bakunin was a man of action. Wrote less than the average founding father of anarchism

>>21758963
>>Tankies unironically think that every country in the world will simultaneously go gommunist
Well, how did they all simultaneously go globalist? How did they all simultaneously go SJW? How did they all simultaneously go lockdown? How did they all simultaneously go mass surveillance? And so on.

>>21759453
>Bakunin was a man of action

>>21759469
So you're saying that the only hope for communism is elites.

>>21758876
>y expropriating the possessing classes it turns everyone into proletarians
except the abolition of private property through marxsm necessarily creates a new administrative class that alienates itself from the proletariat

>>21758436
Dictatorship and Democracy occupy the same space.

When you have two antagonical classes, when you have democracy for one, you have dictatorship for the other. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of the financial elite. We MUST do as they tell us, otherwise the effects of going against a dictatorship applies. This violence is applied through the state.

When the workers seize power and the means of production, the same will apply. Worker democracy means capitalists will live in a dictatorship where their possessions will be taken, their unrestricted freedoms will be culled and their political rights will be extinguished by force.

And here's the catch: Capitalists need the workers, as they're a parasite class. Workers do not need capitalists. That's why they haven't killed all of us even tho they fully have the power to.

Thus, when you have only workers, the necessity of a state will wither, as the power in the workers hands will bring about a new society based cooperation, not oppression.

This society will still have problems, injustice, failure, dissent, etc. It's not about building an utopia, but about freeing man from man.

>>21758728
The German Social Democratic Party (SPD) was THE socialist party at the time, and came up with a program for a socialist society.

This program did not differentiate between socialism and communism. That's bad because socialism is a mean to an end, not an end on itself.

It did not address the role of the state in the trasition to socialism, which is to distribute power to workers until it's own utility depletes and it withers away.

It also did not address how the means of production should be owned and controller by the people, which is the ultimate problem with it.

Also, it was reformist, it believed in working around the current system instead of going over it into a new society.

>>21759538
2 more weeks

>>21759054
>but class conflicts will always remain so
Why?

Please reply 'human nature' so I can just hide the post.

>>21759508
Administrators are just workers, it's class society which places intellectual work above others.

>>21759563
>classes will wither away because... BECAUSE THEY JUST WILL OK??

>based theorist
>based

>>21759573
They are workers which have power and sway over other workers. They aren't equal workers then, and no wordplay will save you from that flaw. It's the same way that a bourgeois is still a human, but since they have power over the workers and those below them, they are distinguished in class. There is no reason why the administrators will not just supplant the previous bourgeois as a ruling class, as there is no guarantee that the administrators will have "class consciousness".

>>21758417
>Am I missing something? Why are they like this?
Using 18 Brumaire against Leninism as Marx intended. Leninists and all substitutionalists are either scholar or bourgeois middle class trying to become nomenklatura; or, scholar, bourgeois and labour aristocrat trying to become nomenklatura (Leninism or Labourism).

A true proletarian series of parties will be partly trapped by these narratives but on the whole exceed them as our power is not bound up in a series of coup attempts against a bourgeois government but in workplace councils.

Your reading assignment is Bill Lomax on 1956. And 18 Brumaire if you haven't read it yet.

>>21758436
communism doesn't mean free shit you dense faggot.

Is Victor Serge worth reading?

>>21759573
administrators have power that workers do not, even in a democracy. in the case of the dictatorship of the proletariat, they have power over ALL of that juicy nationalized capital and influence over production and distribution of goods

>>21758929
You did not seriously recommend Trotsky....

>>21759573
>it's class society which places intellectual work above others.
Intellectual work is intrinsically more valuable than manual work, for multiple reasons. The basic reasons are as follows: High intellect is disproportionately uncommon in accordance with the bell curve, reducing the "supply" of competent intellectual workers; High intellect is disproportionately in demand, because it results in disproportionate gains to productivity or rates of profit (an additional manual labourer at worst decreases profits arithmetically, in middling increases profits arithmetically, and at best increases profits geometrically alongside increases in capital, which is "economies of scale"). High intellectual ability will at worst increase profits geometrically, and at best will increase them exponentially, as a highly competent administrator will be able to quickly expand to the limits of the resources at hand and maximize their use organisationally and logistically. This results in a qualitatively distinct labour market for intellectual workers where the labour commodity is much higher in value. This results in intellectual workers being given more in return, so that they can be allocated (ideally) to the sectors of the economy where they will produce the most profits (ideally, but not usually, overall benefit).

>>21758417
>probably don’t understand Marx
If you wanna read something funny, Engels wrote in the 1850s that there would be a revolution in the future and the people who did it would fuck it up because they didn't really understand it, and then a reaction would set in, and people would come to think of communists as a bunch of barbarians. But that didn't matter because they wrote everything down in advance. Also people in the future would be pressed to make communist experiments before they were really ready for it.

And if you think about it, it's like yeah that's pretty much what happened. There was another letter from this Scottish aristocrat about talking to Marx and relaying what he heard to Princess Victoria (not the Queen, one of the princesses), and the aristocrat told Marx that if there was a revolution in Germany that brought down the militarist system there (which Marx thought was inevitable), then it would still be a long way off before his ideas could be put into practice, and he was like "yeah, but it's just a step on the road, all great movements take a long time." Which sounds like a cop out, but you can see why people are still reading this stuff. They also pretty accurately predicted WWI, even around 10 million dead, and there was basically no stopping it because of the runaway outbidding of armaments by the different European powers which, once it set in, became impossible to escape from.

>>21759054
>considering that our reality is not only a material one but also a emotional and spiritual reality, people do all sorts of irrational and non materialistic things all the time
Have you ever seen people fighting over the napkins at a McDonald's to take them and then sell them to make a profit? If you see someone doing that, that'd probably be a sign of mental illness.

>>21759233
>there was this one quote i love of him but i cant remember rn, it boiled down to "every social system will exhaust all means of existence, every possible combination, before giving away and collapsing"
Dante's Inferno

>>21759233
>american hegemony is slowly fading and we're already seeing BRICS emerge and helping (for some reason) other countries
I think the U.S. is gonna more and more go into Starship Troopers fascism as it tries to cope with that. China is the main target because they thought it'd turn into another Japan which is kept in a weak position (also they have growing infrastructure problems too) once its exports became too competitive, but China largely prevented a financialized economy by keeping capital subordinate to the state. This has completely shocked the U.S. and 40 years of neoliberalism hasn't prepared the empire to handle it other than militarily.

>>21759581
>marxism turned into a lifestyle brand

Oh the irony

>>21760669
Wait until you see the gift shop.

>>21760681
Probably made in China

>>21760681
>>21760684
How does capitalism do it, fellas?

>another /leftroonpol/ thread

>>21760687
Have you ever played System Shock or watched Event Horizon?

Capital is like the ship in that movie which returns from a black hole (or Warhammer 40k chaos void) which then starts to deconstruct the captain and crew and rearranges them to suits own purposes. This is an analogy, like an intelligent machine, which decides what to produce instead of humans, with the sole purpose of capitalism being to duplicate more capital for eternity so anything that can bring efficiency and generate more capital is capitalism's target, including drugs, guns, sex, identity, religion, and junk food... everything. Including Marxism.

Like I said, that goes for everything. People are just instruments or inputs into the machine to produce more output. (More efficiency and hence more duplication of capital.) For the people here who are attached to a white or WASP identity, that's being deconstructed too, because their flesh and even soul is not enough to feed the machine any longer. Families are being deconstructed. The intelligence, muscle, and hard work from other races, genders, and identities are more "competitive" due to the scale and scope which this machine is now operating on. Of course, capitalism is a rather abstract concept. Its substructural material is rather clear, such as hundreds of military bases around the world. In other words, if the U.S. remains an isolated North American power, it will not be "diverse" internally, so diversity and multiculturalism are precisely the results of a WASP commitment to defend capitalism.

So, the most capitalist country is going to be destroyed the most by capitalism itself from within and from outside, completely erasing everything one can cherish. It's hypocrisy itself and also explains the necessity of Marxism and socialism, though Marxism doesn't take the racial attributes but focuses on social classes.

This also doesn’t mean that some other or the "woke" or figures are winning the battle either because they, in their own central narrative, are also losers like WASPs because, at the end of the day, everybody has been played by capitalism. Naturally it's not hard to imagine that if even all the "people of color" and LGBTQ cannot satisfy capitalism's insatiable hunger, then the inevitable fate of mankind will be being replaced by some other "resources" for greater efficiency and output of the "machine." Even these guys are starting to figure it out:

https://youtu.be/qKgfcd6lqp4

>>21760549
uh, that's not what commies believe though

>>21759563
It's funny how communism needs humans to act in very narrow and predictable ways to succeed even in theory, but than marxists can't even accept the fact that we have reproduced by competing in hierachies for our entire existence and how that might influence their future utopia

>>21760734
NOOOO ONLY THE FOUR TROONS ON MY DISCORD ARE REAL COMMUNISTS

>>21759443
Commies lost to capitalism every single time. They either destroyed themselves or adopted capitalism.

why can't we all just get along

>>21758417
Fuck off.

>>21760750
and this disproves Marx how?

>>21760756
No

>>21758417
/qa/ lost

>>21758417
Uh…. Lenin and Stalin did virtually everything in line with Marx and Engels though? Mao’s theory suffered substantially (although later excisions of Marx more or less put Mao in line with what Marx thought could occur during a worker’s uprising)

Why do Commie scumfucks always try to make it sound like Marx and Engels (or Lenin) were just HECKIN’ wholesome democratic socialists who wanted PEACEFUL transition of power to the proles? Marx and Engels advocated for violent, merciless death of their enemies. Engels advocates for literally genociding ethnic groups in “The National Question”

They’re sick fucked up freaks. Stalin was very dogmatic and wrote often on justifications for his policies. He was a fanatical zealot who truly believed in communism, not a cynical low IQ brute like he’s portrayed in western media.

>>21760681
>>21760684
HAHAHAHAHAHA

How many more people have to die to achieve your post-capitalist world? How many more mountains of corpses do we need? How many tens of millions more must be added to the body count? If your ideology always results in idealists who, along with their lackeys pulled from the dregs of society, inflict terror and death upon the masses, why should I ever respond with anything but disgust?

And don’t get pissy because I used the empirical approach, empiricism is built into the human mind; when something painful happens repeatedly, we avoid the circumstances that led to it.

>>21760804
>Engels advocates for literally genociding ethnic groups in “The National Question”
you're illiterate

I used to be dismissive of Marxism until I joined the workforce, then it instantly hit me: oh shit.
I think everyone who has ever worked (as a wagie) instinctively knows that he’s being exploited, somehow. Marxism was a way of trying to theorize how this exploitation worked, but it was based on the outdated labor theory of value and was refuted in time. Marxists to this day refuse to admit that the LVT is wrong and instead religiously cling to it like dogma, attacking their critics instead.
The working class remains without a true theory that explain the mechanism of exploitation, the increasing chasm between the rich and the poor and the environmental crisis as Marxism cristalizes more and more, from flawed theory to dogma to capitalist niche identity/way of life.

>>21760549
communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society you retard so yes everything is free.
>t. commie

Mao was way better than Lenin, or Stalin. He had a deeper understanding of Hegelian dialectics than all of them. People think he was a based retard , but he was an extremely astute person with also cold hard judgement. Just this quote alone is pure Hegelian dialectics and shows a better understanding of Marx than all of 20th century intellectuals.

>>21760835

How many more billions need to die so that so called "free market" capital can continue uninpeded? Do we have to suffer complete environmental collapse and utter dehumanization to achieve that capitalist "utopia" that the technocrats preach of? Its that kind of thinking thats a delusional religious and pie and the sky more so than post-capitalist thought. What happens instead we get used to this being status quo being shitty, exploitative and brutal while at the same time keeping apearances "that things will get better" (they won't).

>>21758876
> everyone into proletarians. and once everyone is proletarian, nobody is proletarian anymore because there are no class distinctions
Yeah there’s just no way imbalances will ever reappear in society. Everyone will be exactly the same on a level playing field. No region anywhere will develop an excess and no region anywhere will have less. Good thing all people are also born exactly the same so no advantages can develop.

>>21761120
>whataboutism
Your problem is that you think that anyone wants some capitalist utopia, as opposed to gommies who have always been idealists preaching for workers' utopia.

>>21761120
>Do we have to suffer complete environmental collapse and utter dehumanization to achieve that capitalist "utopia" that the technocrats preach of?
Is china free market economy now?

>>21758963
>They'll take their money, which will secure them their means of production elsewhere
dictatorships of the proletariat in their country as well as in other countries beginning to destroy the capitalist economy will affect the world market and drastically decrease the potential profits of the runaway capitalists. and then they'll get expropriated again when the revolution reaches their new country.
>Tankies unironically think that every country in the world will simultaneously go gommunist
I'm not a tankie. I do think that capitalism is inextricably tied to the world market as a whole, not just national market, and that revolutionary movements in this day and age can't be contained by state borders (see Arab Spring as an example).
bourgeois society is very clearly structured like a domino. how deluded do you have to be to believe in some feudal-like economic and political autonomy in the year 2023 after we've experienced the interconnectedness first hand with Covid, "supply chain crisis", Ukraine war?
>Correct, that's why the person is usually an army general
army backed by which social class?
>>21759508
administration is a job, not a class. you might as well say that it creates a class of baristas and a class of teachers. pure nonsense
>>21761124
>No region anywhere will develop an excess and no region anywhere will have less.
thankfully things can be transported between places
>Good thing all people are also born exactly the same so no advantages can develop.
do you think no class distinctions = everyone will be equally talented at basketball or something?

>>21761060
what's wrong about "LVT"?

>>21761146
>>Your problem is that you think that anyone wants some capitalist utopia
Then why is everyone working so hard at anti-humanity to achieve it?

>>21761250
>what's wrong about "LVT"?
Just that the people have been brainwashed by Jews into thinking that there is any other value in anything else and they will defend their masters to the death.

>>21758509
You are retarded if you think that slavery would still exist in the South if the Union lost or if the Civil War never happened. Slave based economies are unsustainable when your county is becoming industrialized. You need your workers to have knowledge on how to operate machinery and your profits will be higher by having wage laborers working them instead of slaves working in primitive conditions producing very little.

>>21761272
Value is created outside of your labour, someone digging a hole in the middle of nowhere isn't creating value no matter how hard he works, while someone doing the same work and hitting oil creates value. It's not the labour that creates the value it's the end result.

>>21761284
Why do you think slavery somehow means "primitive conditions" necessarily? Retarded American propaganda? Many important people in world history were slaves and they lived perfectly normal lives otherwise?

>>21761294
And that kind of thinking got us where we are. Enjoy your panopticon and being replaced by AI retard.

>>21761297
I meant that the form of slavery where you force people into agrarian jobs working with the same tools from a thousand years ago is inneficiant. A slave owner in the South will industrialize and free his slaves not out of any moral obligations but because it will make him more money at the end. Freeing your slave, educating and training him to use modern farm equipment will drastically improve your crop yields and give you more profit. The cost of feeding a slave and keeping him in chains will give you less returns then just turning him into a wage laborer and paying his wage while he creates larger and larger profits for you. Slavery isn't evil its inneficiant.

>>21761314
>>I meant that the form of slavery where you force people into agrarian jobs working with the same tools from a thousand years ago is inneficiant.
Well no shit, because that is inefficient as such. Why do you think even American slaves lived like that though?
>will industrialize and free his slaves
Industrialize, sure, but why would he free them?
>keeping him in chains
Why do you think slaves need to be in chains? They weren't in chains throughout most of the world's history. Too many American propaganda movies again?

>>21761299
And what's the alternative having a planned economy where the government pays you to smash rocks even if it creates no actual value just so you can busy yourself with work.

>>21761321
You literally already have exactly that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

>>21761320
Both literal and figurative chains, keeping people not free. The point is that a wage laborer is technically free to leave his job while a slave isn't. But the rich man doesn't care about the condition of his labourers only that they produce. And physical slavery where a person is forbidden from changing work positions is inherently less efficient then wage labour. Also American chattel slavery was one where people were forced into their labour instead of given options to leave. The original post complaining about slavery was about the American South want going to abolish slavery on their own and needed to be forced into it. My assertion was that slavery (american chattel slavery) would phase itself out due to its inherent inefficiency.

>>21761325
I know we already have it this system is also retarded. Ideally if technology advances enough we should delegate necessary labour to robots and spend our lives writing poetry. But that won't happen people will either keep working bullshit jobs or spend their UBI on hedonistic pleasures never self actualizing.

>>21761337
>and spend our lives writing poetry.
Already taken over by AI, sorry.

>>21759054
>The problem with Marx is
Nothing substantial EVER follows this up kek

>>21761294
you have problems with elementary logical reasoning. the statements "not all labour creates value" and "all value is created by labour" are not contradictory. so by stating the former, you aren't actually refuting the latter.
>>21761297
it's entailed by a slave being recognized as something less than a citizen. your exceptions only prove the rule
>>21761320
>but why would he free them
because having less responsibility while keeping the same or larger profit is always preferable. at some point the sophistication of society raises to such a level that it becomes more profitable to exploit people that are deluded they're your equals and who are forced to deal their own shit in their own time than being responsible for an army of dependent chattel.

>>21761337
Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.

>>21761399
>your exceptions only prove the rule
Retardinho.

>>21761314
Actually, one would treat his own property better than if he just rented it. Would you take care more of your own car, or some car you rented and other people used and will use?

>>21761461
If the rented car provides me with
more value then my own car, let's say you rent a truck, drive it across the country delivering goods and make good money off it. You would value it more then your own car.

>>21761399
My point was that the end result of labour is what creates value, labour in not inherently valuable. You can make more value by going outside your house, tripping on a huge diamond and then selling it for millions, than you would by doing backbreaking physical labour for 50 years.

>>21761516
All you're saying is that commodities have an exchange value within a market economy. We know that much.

>>21758436
It just does, ok!!

>>21761448
says the guy who thinks listing a few exception proves anything
>>21761516
>My point was that the end result of labour is what creates value
that doesn't make sense. when value is being produced, the end result of labour is a commodity embodying value. so the end result doesn't create value. the end result is value
>labour in not inherently valuable
you're just restating "not all labour creates value". but as I already said, this doesn't contradict all value being created by labour.
except also now you're restating it in a confused form, because "a labour creates value" is a different statement from "a labour is valuable". just like "the Higgs field gives mass to particles" is a different statement than "the Higgs field has a mass"
>you can make more value by going outside your house, tripping on a huge diamond and then selling it for millions, than you would by doing backbreaking physical labour for 50 years.
that's not how the diamond mining industry works in reality though, which should tell you something.
what actually matters for value is the average labour. and if it took 50 man-years on average to find a diamond, that would mean for every instance of stumbling upon a diamond randomly, there would be an instance of someone spending 100 man-years and finding no diamond.
so it's a mistake to only consider a single instance of producing a diamond when trying to get at value, rather than considering the entirety of diamond production within the world market.

>>21761569
Except diamonds are being "stumbled upon" en masse every day by slaves who get nothing for it. They're not rare at all.

>>21761569
My original point at the beginning was a refutation of LTV as it defines value as a social utility. Marx postulated that labour creates value as a utility, for example a worker growing and harvesting crops creates value due to the social utility of the crops. Without them you die. But in a market economy the value of those crops isn't created solely by the labour that goes into creating them but in various other things. If food is plentiful then the value is reduced and vice versa. If you create a planned economy that focuses solely on LTV than everything a worker creates will be assigned value based on the arbitrary decisions of party officials. If they say a kilo of steel is worth this much then that's the price and the worker is compensated based on that value. But this inevitably leads to market inneficiacies. At one point something might happen that reduces thi price, but the central apparatus won't amend the price on time. I'm from a former Yugoslavian republic and back in the day you had these problems where workers produced goods that weren't profitable
. The state run factories had to be subsidized as they constantly underperformed on the market.

>>21761610
>I'm from a former Yugoslavian republic and back in the day you had these problems where workers produced goods that weren't profitable
aha, puno je bolje sad kad vise nemamo ni brodogradilista ni poljoprivredu, ni auto industriju ni nista

>>21758508
He asked a valid question. The revolution is over once I get power...

>>21761604
no, diamonds are being explicitly mined for
>>21761610
>But in a market economy the value of those crops isn't created solely by the labour that goes into creating them but in various other things
such as?
>If food is plentiful then the value is reduced and vice versa.
no, if food is plentiful, then some of the food-producing labour moves to producing other things. what determines the value is how much social labour needs to be dedicated to produce a unit of food relative to that needed to produce some other thing.
>If you create a planned economy that focuses solely on LTV than everything a worker creates will be assigned value based on the arbitrary decisions of party officials.
this scenario doesn't make sense. products of labour constitute values only because they represent private property within a division of labour, so that private contributions in the social division of labour can receive back an appropriate portion of the social labour, which they need to repeat the private contribution.
but in a centrally planned economy this arrangement is gone: resources aren't distributed through the value relation, but directly by the planners, so products no longer constitute values. rather than being "focused solely on", in a centrally planned economy the "LTV" is done away with.
>But this inevitably leads to market inneficiacies.
there's no market in a communist society. a market is a place where private owners of property come to trade. but in a communist society there's just a single proprietor: the communist society. it doesn't sell things to itself and buy them from itself. rather, it directly distributes its product between its members: according to the central plan, not according to labour values.
>At one point something might happen that reduces thi price, but the central apparatus won't amend the price on time.
sure, you're just demonstrating that "central planning with markets and prices" is an oxymoron, because in reality the planners don't control the prices, but the prices the planners, just like they "control" people in an "unplanned" capitalist economy. I agree with all this, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. because the fact that a communist society can't have the law of value regulating production and distribution doesn't disprove the fact that the law of value regulates them in a capitalist society, which is the Marxist claim.
>I'm from a former Yugoslavian republic and back in the day you had these problems where workers produced goods that weren't profitable. The state run factories had to be subsidized as they constantly underperformed on the market.
this is a normal capitalist phenomenon. even the US notoriously subsidizes companies and industries, and they want to do it more now.

>>21761734
>it doesn't sell things to itself and buy them from itself.
Why not?

>>21761399
>all value is created by labour
False.
Wine aging in an oak barrel, an oak tree growing in a virgin forest, oil being produced by physical and chemical processes over millions of years are all examples of all examples of value being created without human labor.
Old wine is more valuable than new and there is not one gram of magical labor substance added to the old that makes it more valuable than the new, there is only chemical processes.
If the labor theory of value were true, Brazilian oil which is extracted from the sea would be more valuable than Saudi oil, which practically is beneath their feet, because Brazilian oil takes more “socially necessary labor time”. But it’s not because that’s bogus and Saudi oil is better solely because of its chemical properties.
Many more examples could be provided but the point is made.
It’s not for nothing that the labor theory of value is only taken seriously by commie incels on the internet.

>>21761734
Sure I understand the concept of how theoretically in a state run economy LTV is phased out and run by state planners, my contention is that pure communism, the dissolution of the state would also entail pure LVT as each individual would receive compensation for his labour. But I dont think this can be done as in order to get to it you need to create a dictatorship of the proletariat where party officials take the burden of leadership preparing for the dissolution. It never comes since those same officials once they have a taste of power never let go of it. I should have stated this in the beginning of the conversation, I believe that LTV can never be realistically implemented since disintegrating the current system into communism is impossible. Private property will always exist one way or another even if its disguised in terms like state property.

>>21761767
Value is not price.
Why is this so unbelievably hard to get?

>>21761800
What is priced based on and what is value aside from price? I already know what you’re going to say, but I’d like to see you flail effort posting about it.

>>21761805
What am I going to say?

>>21761448
if you didn't want to look like a retard you'd have to use a counter example to "all value is created by labour"

>>21761738
for the same reason you don't buy a slice of bread from yourself when you go to the kitchen to make yourself a sandwich. the society already owns the things, whereas buying and selling only happens when they belong to a different private proprietor and need to be acquired first.
>>21761767
>are all examples of value being created without human labor
no, they aren't. if you could just snap your fingers and acquire the wood from a random tree, then the value of the wood would be 0. after all, people wouldn't produce, buy and sell it. they would just snap their fingers if they needed wood.
the wood only has value because the tree is private property and because it takes work to cut it down and to transport it. this means the producers of wood must receive trucks, command over lumberjack labour etc. in exchange for their wood if they are to keep producing wood. that's why the wood they sell has value, not because of the mere fact that the tree has grown. true, that fact is a prerequisite for the wood existing, and consequently also for it having value. but it's not the thing that actually makes it a value in the end.
the same applies to your other examples.
>Old wine is more valuable than new and there is not one gram of magical labor substance added to the old that makes it more valuable than the new, there is only chemical processes
no, whatever excess of value in old wine is fully accounted for by extra labour needed in keeping it aging.
and the further excess of price over value is distinct from the excess of value, and it is accounted for by things like the unsurmountable limitation of supply of aged wine or the fact that the price of production of commodities includes average profit on invested capital, and the price of production of aged wine takes many more turnover periods of capital than non-aged wine
>If the labor theory of value were true, Brazilian oil which is extracted from the sea would be more valuable than Saudi oil, which practically is beneath their feet, because Brazilian oil takes more “socially necessary labor time”
no, if its production requires more effort than the average and the oil is of a lower quality than the average, then it takes more than the average socially necessary labour time. which means that effectively only part of the labour dedicated to producing it creates value. but, for the third time, not all labour creating value is entirely consistent with all value being created by labour.
>Many more examples could be provided but the point is made.
unfortunately not. keep trying
>It’s not for nothing that the labor theory of value is only taken seriously by commie incels on the internet.
sure, the reason has been well known for over 150 years:
>Once the interconnection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice. Here, therefore, it is absolutely in the interest of the ruling classes to perpetuate a senseless confusion.

>>21761243
>administration is a job, not a class. you might as well say that it creates a class of baristas and a class of teachers. pure nonsense
kek i actually cannot believe how stupid leftists are sometimes

>>21761337
The search of hedonism is a product of capitalism. Most of the things that cuckservatives cry about (women liberation, globalism, zombified youths, feminized men, SJWs, atheism, etc) are direct causes of capitalism itself.

It's the competitive set of values which turn people into mindless consoomers who'll eat themselves to death as a response to artifcial scarcity.

In socialism, the focus of social life is society and the improvement of it.

>>21759538
>Capitalists need the workers
A.I and robots will soon change that, late in our lives we will see a slaughter of unimaginable proportions take place across the Earth

>>21761916
i think you're mixing administration with decision-making. just as an example of those two separately, you can appoint randomly managers for short time periods and have meetings of the political body to ratify or cancel any decision
you just enjoy being cucked because you're apathetic

>>21761559
>workers take control of the state
>state is immediately abolished
>anarcho-capitalism goes full throttle
>slave markets in broad daylight
>foreign forces claim territory with close to zero resistance

Anarcucks are a joke.

>>21761899
Oh you really effort posted, and you gave it your best too! Kek.
>wood is valuable because someone needs to cut it down, le trucks, etc.
Kek. If that were the case pine and oak would be the same value, if they were in the same property. You don't know the first thing about commodities.
>whatever excess of value in old wine is fully accounted for by extra labour needed in keeping it aging.
No. Again, you don't know wine. Old wine is not more valuable because of the price of storing it! Kek! You don't know the business. In fact I'd wager you're a uni student and you never worked a day in your life.
> if its production requires more effort than the average and the oil is of a lower quality than the average, then it takes more than the average socially necessary labour time
The quality of the oil has nothing to do with it being harder to produce, but due the merely accidental fact that it's under the water while the far more valuable Saudi oil is a few feet below.
Thanks for the laugh.

>>21761899
>>for the same reason you don't buy a slice of bread from yourself when you go to the kitchen to make yourself a sandwich. the society already owns the things
You're dumb. Society is not a person.

>>21761772
>the dissolution of the state would also entail pure LVT as each individual would receive compensation for his labour.
that's not LTV. LTV is all concrete labour hours being reduced into homogenous abstract labour hours through exchanges of products of private concrete labours on the market. a society with a planned production couldn't execute this even if it wanted, because the formula for this reduction is unknowable. even if they somehow distribute according to labour contribution, the principle will be entirely different, and they'll be able to modify it according to will, rather than being subject to an external law, the law of value.
>It never comes since those same officials once they have a taste of power never let go of it.
and here we enter fanfiction territory. officials can't arbitrarily "hold power". under proletarian dictatorship they can either keep realizing the proletarian program or start realizing the counter-revolutionary program of the possessing classes. either way, the dictatorship will end up being liquidated. and you give no reasons why it always has to be liquidated in the counter-revolutionary direction.
>I believe that LTV can never be realistically implemented
sure, the law of value is in effect now, and it can only realistically be destroyed.
>Private property will always exist one way or another even if its disguised in terms like state property.
no, private property is tending towards its own abolition as the means of production grow to a greater scale and greater integration
>>21761805
>What is priced based on
it's based on value though the mediation of supply and demand
>what is value aside from price
the average socially necessary labour time needed to produce something. whereas price can mean how much money it takes to buy it in any random instance. the two obviously can diverge: if I need 50 bucks as a matter of life and death, I might sell my brand new car for that much. but my personal exceptional situation wouldn't change the fact that my model of car takes on average the labour equivalent of 20000 dollars to produce, and that consequently its average price is around that value.
>>21761916
and I can 100% believe that a frogposter has no arguments beyond "ur dumb kek"
>>21761949
yeah. bus drivers can drive people off cliffs, so for those retards this probably means that bus drivers constitute a powerful class that has peoples lives in its hands.

>>21758417
>don’t understand Marx
They did understand Marx, whose ideas are basically flawed. He derived them, ultimately, from Plato, whose ideas are basically flawed.

>>21761988
THE FORMS HOWEVER

>>21761772
>Private property will always exist one way or another even if its disguised in terms like state property.
Why? It is a human creation, we lived most of our existence without it and humanity did not end. If the state is composed of people and it holds property, that's public property, not private.

Private property means privation, I have and you do not, and I will use force so you can't have it.

Not very long ago, in the XVIII century for example, there were communal properties which had this status, of being publicly-owned, since the dawn of mankind. Someone had to go and put a fence around them and guard them and keep people out, so they became private.

The Belgian Congo, by the time of the Belgian conquest, was mostly composed of communal lands. Once the Belgians enslaved the whole country, it literally became the private property of king Leopold, the whole country.

It goes both ways: In Brazil, lands which were illegally invaded by miners and speculators are being given back to the native communities which communaly owned them.

No human creation can't be undone by humans.

>>21761988
Marx was a firm Aristotle follower, Plato's entire work is basically defending the status quo as the lackey he was.

>>21761988
No this shit again.

>>21761988
>marx's whole body of knowledge is objectively wrong
>he's like essentially wrong unlike me
>no i wont elaborate

>>21761962
>If that were the case pine and oak would be the same value, if they were in the same property
why? oak takes much more time to grow, so already there's a discrepancy in the labour required. and then there is definitely further price discrepancy, for similar reasons as with aged and non-aged wine.
>Old wine is not more valuable because of the price of storing it!
it is, as far as this represents excess labour necessary to produce old wine over regular wine. what's incorrect about this? and did you purposefully ignore what I said about excess price rather than the mere excess of value? because your reaction would make sense if you assumed I was saying that what accounts for the difference in value also accounts for the difference in price. but that's clearly not what I'm saying.
you just can't extend the production of aged wine in keeping with the growing demand, because demand grows year by year yet the production of aged wine has decades of lag. so obviously the supply is going to be hard-limited and consequently the price is going to vastly exceed value. but this is an exceptional case that doesn't hold for most commodities.
it's very funny that you can't prove me wrong in terms of regular industrial products, but you have to specifically appeal to exceptions where value doesn't determine prices, which were already acknowledged by Marx himself in Capital. what do you think you're proving?
>The quality of the oil has nothing to do with it being harder to produce
yes, that's why I listed the two aspects separately. it is true though that if you produce 2 barrels of inferior oil that gives equivalent energy to just 1 barrel of average oil, then your labour, when abstracted and compared with the other labour, only counts as half of it. which can account for different concrete labour inputs leading to equal values in a way that's consistent with labour value.
>>21761972
I'm dumb while your argument is based on not understanding how analogies work? society is not a person, obviously, but a single owner is a single owner. and it's the latter that matters for whether there's buying and selling: the number of proprietors rather than the number of persons. that's because buying and selling is a relation between private proprietors specifically, not between persons as such.

>>21762054
There's never been communal ownership on a significant scale without force. Even native american tribes would fight other tribes to capture resources. The problem with communal ownership on a big scale is three fold. Firstly, it's impossible to empathise with the boundaries of society we have now. How can you genuinely, care about millions of people at an equal level so ultimately you have a limitation, maybe a small town. Beyond that when there is shortage of resource, there's going to be imbalances between two pockets (providing internal tribal relations are fine).

The other two relate to decision making. Having ownership of a resource creates a responsibility to use it well in the interests of it's beneficiaries. On a small scale (family/individual) if this is done badly the impact is small but on a big scale it could lead to famines, etc. Given it's impossible to accurately predict future needs and what is objectively right, you need a system of government.

This falls into two potential camps, the first being by collective voting. Everyone is equal so majority rule. This brings everything down to the lowest common denominator and it is very easy to sway through propaganda because it is unreasonable to expect every individual expert in every single topic. Particularly if you are expecting nuanced individual opinions.

The other is to have a centralised system where specialists manage their appropriate aspect for the betterment of society. This creates a ruling class for risks of greed, ego, etc and their fucks up could be massive without any power to stop them. Very similar to the traditional collective cultures you admire who had a tribal leader/community. They tend towards conservative as it is less risky.

The beauty of distinctions on private property means it allows free agency of an individual to go against the collective which may end up in the interest of it without risking too much. You can also have many different avenues tested at once so only the best survives without having to worry about mass adoption too early on.

>>21761083
retard. you still need to contribute in order to gain shit, by definition it is not free, it is still based on exchange, it just hypothetically does away with an inter-worth stand in that can be accumulated and manipulated.

>>21762108
You're like a virgin theorizing about sex without even knowing where a woman's vagina is (assuming you're into women).
>You see, wood is valueable because... private property, and people have to cut it down, and... oh, and trucks and shit!
Kek.

>>21761962
VALUE IS NOT PRICE

>>21762189
thanks for letting everyone know that you gave up. and yes, I already explained why wood isn't valuable in itself. it's only valuable when your use of it is impeded by it being someones property and that someone needs the equivalent of the labour spent producing it if they are to give it up. then the wood represents a certain amount of economic value. otherwise it wouldn't, it would be like the air in the atmosphere, which you don't need to exchange with an air producer for some other thing embodying value. you can just breathe it. your retarded kekking and 100% transparent projections about being a basement-dwelling virgin can't refute the above simple facts.

>>21761250
It'd be impossible to do justice to the subjective theory of value in a 4Chan post, but the way I understand it is this, value is not inherent in the thing itself; value is a function of human needs, which are subjective in nature: the theory doesn't judge or discriminate between the need to drink water and the "need" to have the latest iPhone; they're all perfectly valid economic needs as far as it is concerned. Furthermore, value is a function of scarcity: in the desert you'd pay one million dollars for a glass of water because it's extremely scarce, but with each additional unit of water you'd pay marginally less until you're filled, in which case you'd pay nothing; you'd also pay nothing if you were near a well, etc.
The theory has its merits, and seems to agree with Kantian philosophy in positing that the value is not in the thing itself -- but I viscerally and repudiate it because it goes against my intuition.
I want to be able to say that, e.g. a Da Vinci painting is more valuable than some postmodern splatter painting, and that because of its inherent quality. Not, however, like Marx, simply because it takes more time to make it.
I want to be able to deny that the postmodern anal plug "sculpture" is art, and in fact worth millions, because the rich man says so (subjective theory of value), while the skilled artist on the street sells his "outdated" art for pennies.
A new theory value would have to take into consideration the subjective aspect of value, but not exclusively it: that is the bourgeoise prejudice and the greatest flaw of the subjective theory of value, that it considers people as abstract, Cartesian individuals in a Cartesian or Newtonian system, ignoring the social and historical dimensions of even subjectivity itself. Marx had the right idea when he analyzed the complex dialectic between individual and society, with each determining and being determined in turn by the other in the historical flux, but when it came to his account of value it came down to: because it takes more time to produce it bro, which I find extremely weak.
Also he was a materialist, which I also instinctively repudiate.
I'd love to give it a shot at articulating a new theory of value that refutes the subjective one and explains the reality of exploitation better than the labor theory (or at least builds upon it), maybe returning to Hegel? but alas I don't have time to study, as I'm a wagecuck (and a lazy mofo).

>>21758417
>Why are they like this?
Gee, maybe because they read Marx?

Maybe the fact that everyone who runs around calling themselves Marxist establishes insane totalitarian murder-states should fucking tell you something ABOUT Marx, retard.

>>21762503
It's ridiculously simple, all you have to do is not be a retarded atheist.

>>21762319
>letting everyone know
Who's everyone? This is not your Twitch streams, kek! I'm just not so keen into entertaining zoomers in their free time. The LTV has been refuted to death.

>>21758417

>>21762503
>Furthermore, value is a function of scarcity
it's not. you could produce enough units of things A and B to satisfy everyone's needs for A and B, but this wouldn't alter the fact that A and B require different amounts of social labour to produce per unit, which would make their relative values and average prices unequal despite equal scarcity
>in the desert you'd pay one million dollars for a glass of water because it's extremely scarce
that doesn't prove that value is a function of scarcity because value is a magnitude at the level of society. it only proves that the price will rise to an extreme locally if demand isn't covered by supply. but in average circumstances demand is covered by supply, because normally when prices rise over cost of production due to excess demand, additional capital is invested into production for the extra profit and the prices are brought down. that's why the social-wide value and the incidental per-transaction prices are different concepts
overall, this was already dealt with earlier in the thread: the existence (or hypothetical existence) of extreme exceptions doesn't disprove the general rule
>The theory has its merits
no, it's just wrong
>I want to be able to say that, e.g. a Da Vinci painting is more valuable than some postmodern splatter painting, and that because of its inherent quality
why would it matter what you want to be able to say
>Not, however, like Marx, simply because it takes more time to make it.
but that's what economic value is, whether you want it or not. in capitalist society products must be values reflecting the part of total social labour it takes to produce them, because when selling those products, their producers must receive command over enough labour that they're able to reproduce them and keep society running. this is an economic law which has objective validity for a good reason
opposing to it some illusory inherent qualities you "would want to be able to say" exist and determine value is a poor joke.
>A new theory value would have to take into consideration
first and foremost: the reality of how capitalist society reproduces the stuff it needs to persist in time
>that is the bourgeoise prejudice and the greatest flaw of the subjective theory of value, that it considers people as abstract
I'd say its greatest flaw is simply that it doesn't adequately express the reality of what the value relation is and how prices are determined
>which I find extremely weak
yeah, but you can't give any reasons why that would show how the actual real world economy works differently than how Marx describes it
>>21762571
>Who's everyone?
62 IPs have posted in this thread, so it's safe to say everyone = at least a few 12s of people
>The LTV has been refuted to death
but surely you should understand how it looks when you say this after having failed at producing a single good argument to refute it? because all you wrote reduced to pointing out stuff that has already been accounted for in Capital

>>21762587
he also joked with engels and called each other nigger ironically in their letters. what is your point?

>>21762647
I think his point is that Marx was based. unless he thinks things like not dying in a war for some aristocrats or being considered by them such a danger that they kick you out of their country isn't extremely based. in that case his point is rather that he's retarded, I guess

>>21762647
>>21762660

>>21762666
>filename

>>21762645
>failed at producing a single good argument to refute it
Actually I have produced plenty of examples that refute the LTV, and you responded with juvenile nonsense. Kek.

>>21762666
we're not the ones butthurt that Marx didn't opt to die in someones war, in a duel with some braindead retard, or get worked to death in a factory instead of producing works that make you mad to this day.
>>21762677
no, I have explained exhaustively why those examples don't refute it at all, and your only response was "kek you're a virgin" (which was definitely not a projection)

>>21762688
I can't take seriously someone who thinks that the economic value of wood is based on the fact that you have to pay someone to cut them down. Kek.
This was when I noticed that you were a clueless zoomer and began to just poke fun at you.
>virgin
Don't worry you'll grow out of your angsty communist phase when you lose it.

>>21758417
The great folly of marxism was the idea that theory could be harmoniously integrated into practice without experiential evidence. The theory was tested the one time during the revolution, and there was no time to fine tune and redo it again.

>>21762696
>I can't take seriously someone who thinks that the economic value of wood is based on the fact that you have to pay someone to cut them down.
why not?

>>21762696
Imagine if the tree fell naturally, you wouldn't the able to sell it!
>Gee I guess we'll just have to throw away that one, and pay somebody to cut the three right next to it so we can exploit his surplurs value
Kek.

>>21762719
Because it's retarded.

>>21762722
I haven't said anything that would imply this. what I did imply was this: if trees normally feel naturally when someone to use the wood, then their value wouldn't include the labour of cutting them down. but this is entirely correct. so again, which part is wrong or retarded?

>>21762722
>>21762734
when someone needed to use the wood*

>all of this "words words words" posting
Go back to work, wagie.

>>21762587
NOOOOOO DON'T MAKE FUN OF MY MESSIAH YOU CHUD

>>21762705
i get your point but imo marx has a firm theoretical posture, namely the praxis/transforming instead of just knowing. whats more, i'd say that since that moment there are many more class conscious individuals so it is catching on, just not as fast. since 2008 it has started accelerating but still not critical point acceleration.
my point being, experimental evidence is gathered while working the subject at hand , and in marx it is repeated time and time again (literally a materialist) that experience is a must, even has the whole mass experience concept inbuilt.
The other criticism is literally trotksys point, you can't transform social reality with a leap by some decree or even national congress, you literally have to agitate and teach the whole population about class society and politize them as much as possible. mao did take up on this and we could argue about its results but it is overshadowing everything lately. i myself don't feel perfectly ok with the cultural revolution but it has definitely driven china forward.

that's on masses, now on a personal level i'm a big fan of historical experiences (and if you are too, i'd suggest the dawn of everything by wengrow and graeber) and do believe that all such data is required to better understand social implications and possibilities of conscious tranformation towards a less class-divided society

>>21762725
try not paying people for work, see how that goes
>inb4 there are some literal slaves yet
and they're being forced into that state with threats of incredible violence because slavery of old is almost impossible to achieve today in a globalized world for reasons
this phenomena requires transformations that would do away with capitalism anyway

>>21762734
what the other anon tries to explain is that a commodity has a two-sided value: use value (made up by what some people call subjective value or whatever, its its material form and properties. some people include the observer/buyer/user subjectivity because duh can't have value without a fucking subject valuing) and exchange value, which happens only in societies where exchange of commodities happens and is bound in capitalist society by certain limitations which he describes in das kapital
this exchange value arises when you devote yourself to acquiring for trade instead of actual use. you dgaf if thats used or not, just want nice ol' dough. this value is related to human work/time is required in any case where humans trade stuff. it is useful for averages and understanding movement of commodities in again, average human capitalist economies where trees don't grow infinitely nor you are able to find gold laying in the ground. anyways you'd have to collect and distribute it so there's human time.

>>21761269
China does it the most though.

>>21762734
Oh boy it must be school break or something.
If I presented to a buyer the naturally fell and the cut wood, he wouldn't be able to tell difference and I'd sell them for the same value. They would be exactly the same except maybe I'd have a slightly higher profit with the naturally fell one. So far so good if you have a normally functioning brain like the majority of society.
But if your brain damaged by Marxism you'd think that I'd be better throwing away the naturally fell tree because I would be able to extract any surplus value from workers with that tree and I'd have lesse profit! Kek.
>what part is retarded
The part between your ears, apparently.

Time to crash this thread, with no survivors.

>>21762768
>incredible violence
Calm down, chud. You're sweating now. Kek.

>>21762769
"humanity" as a feature in an economic system represents an extra cost, china is just more cost efficient because they're better at playing these games
capitalism (and in china's case, state capitalism) cuts on all corners possible and sometimes overcuts (that's where you get social unrest)

>>21762775
not the guy you're arguing with but that's plain stupid. you're not gonna find fallen trees forever and anyways you'd need to haul the damn stuff. eventually you'd run out of trees. have you ever actually ran a business? is this how you understand economics?

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319

>>21762781
Yeah this is exactly how I imagine the Marxists ITT. Kek.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21762784
>>21762787

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787

>>21762787
No it's just a didactic example to illustrate how the LTV is nonsensical so that even a retarded kid can understand. Of course you're gonna run out of fell trees, you retarded autist. You're supposed to abstract from and generalize from that simple, didactic example. Kek. Some of you kids are hysterical.

>>21758417
>be based theorist and write an amazing amount of critique on the greatest force in the world
He didn't? Literally all his predictions were wrong. All of his theories have been discarded by history. Nietzsche was a way better social theorist, and actually made predictions that ended being true. He was right about modern, liberal ideals creating the conditions for hedonistic last men. He was right about socialism, communism leading to nothing but a tyranny through the centralization power within government. His theory of slave morality is a great critique of equality panderers, and he had a way better theory of the state than Marx.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21758769
>>21758799
>>21758854
>>21758863
>>21758876
>>21758881
>>21758882

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762807
>>21762809
>>21758967
>>21758973
>>21758982
>>21758991
>>21758995
>>21759015

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728

>>21762775
>people can find (or steal) things and sell them
>all economic theories proven wrong
>checkmate

>>21762789
>you can't criticize capitalism or you like robbery
are you 12?

>>21762790
you are great at not engaging bro, maybe you're in the wrong board

>>21762807
try another example then, or respond to the cost of moving the fucking wood around in labor
or make a business telling people to go fetch their own wood and pay you for it

>>21762809
for a good reinterpretation of nietzsche and marx with lots of antifreudian shit read deleuze's anti oedipus
i know rhizomes are not the last thing on but they're the basics of most interesting modern technology so that's something

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762823
>>21761674
>>21761677
>>21761734
>>21761738
>>21761767
>>21761772
>>21761800
>>21761812
>>21761837

>>21758509
Slavery already being gradually abolished in the states up until the Civil War, you fucking retard. In fact, it was the case like that all over the world - specially even in Russia and Britain.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762825
>>21758882
>>21758929
>>21758963
>>21758967
>>21758982
>>21758991

>>21762830
i want to rape this bich

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762825
>>21762834
>>21759411
>>21759248
>>21759276
>>21759437
>>21759443

>>21758603
>"critique of the Gotha programme" answers this very question.
It doesn't. Marx only describes his conception of communism. He never discusses how society should reach it. Which makes it especially retarded people are communists. You basically have a belief system with no plan of action.

>>21762830
He is correct. The only thing is that there is no overthrowing it. It must run its course. If you seriously like capitalism and can’t see all the bad it does you’re just ignorant. Nobody fuckin actually likes capitalism.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762841
>>21762825
>>21762823
>>21762107
>>21762098
>>21762062
>>21762054
>>21762030

>>21762845
Marx described that it would happen naturally, he even advocated for the free market because he saw it part of the process to bring about social change.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762841
>>21762825
>>21762823
>>21762107
>>21762098
>>21762062
>>21762054
>>21762030
>>21762849
>>21762845
>nobody actually likes crapitalism
Doubt

>>21762809
Midwit alert. You’ve never read Marx.

>>21762768
>what the other anon tries to explain is that a commodity has a two-sided value: use value and exchange value
but use-value and value are separate concepts. we're talking about value here. air is extremely useful because I'd drop dead without it in a few minutes, but it has zero economic value because it's not someone's private property.
>>21762775
>But if your brain damaged by Marxism you'd think that I'd be better throwing away the naturally fell tree because I would be able to extract any surplus value from workers with that tree and I'd have lesse profit!
no, that's not what Marxists think. Marxists think that if you can get trees below average cost of production for some reason (because, e.g., they just naturally fall and cut themselves up on your land for you for some reason), then the individual value of your trees is going to be lower than average, but you're going to sell them higher, closer to the actual social value (because the buyer can't tell), which means you're going to pocket EXTRA surplus value compared to the average producer.
so what Marxists think is--big surprise--the exact opposite of what you're saying they think. and what I said is explained in volume 1 of Capital, but you obviously haven't read it
>The part between your ears, apparently.
then what does this say about you if you aren't able to refute a single thing I say
>>21762830
>>21762840
>anti-Marxists get utterly btfo'd
>commence damage control by burying the evidence behind spam posts
lmao, could you get any more pathetic?

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762841
>>21762825
>>21762823
>>21762107
>>21762098
>>21762062
>>21762054
>>21762030
>>21762858
>>21762849
>>21762845
>>21762841
>I-It will just happen bro
Lmaoooo this is who you worship

>>21762825
>try another example then
Why so you can dismiss it? I know how this game already. Btw I've given other examples in this thread.
>cost of moving the fucking wood around in labor
See, it's not that I have ill-will, it's that you're genuinely, hopelessly low-IQ. You think moving things around increase the value of something? In a furniture things get moved around every day and their value don't increase. Kek.

>>21762845
That's why being a proper communist includes not only learning from Marx but from the revolutionaries who successfully did so.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762841
>>21762825
>>21762823
>>21762107
>>21762098
>>21762062
>>21762054
>>21762030
>>21762858
>>21762849
>>21762845
>>21762841
>>21762865
>>21762869
>r/antiwork tourist wants genuine engagement

>>21758854
Kill yourself faggot

>>21762864
You don’t understand enough. You have an infantile grasp on things, which is why you’re spamming. You’re just brainwashed to see any critique of the system you live in as le evil other team.

>>21762855
>You think moving things around increase the value of something? not him but yes, things that need to be transported before use will be more expensive than things that fall from the sky directly where they need to be used, simply because it takes transport labour that needs to be paid

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762841
>>21762825
>>21762823
>>21762107
>>21762098
>>21762062
>>21762054
>>21762030
>>21762858
>>21762849
>>21762845
>>21762841
>>21762865
>>21762869
>>21762879
>>21762881
>>21762884
Why are extremists such dysngenic subhumans?

>>21762855
>You think moving things around increase the value of something?
not him but yes, things that need to be transported before use will be more expensive than things that fall from the sky directly where they need to be used, simply because it takes transport labour that needs to be paid

>>21762879
Dude, your tree example sucks. No economic theory could describe trees magically falling and transporting themselves to unknowing buyers.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762841
>>21762825
>>21762823
>>21762107
>>21762098
>>21762062
>>21762054
>>21762030
>>21762858
>>21762849
>>21762845
>>21762841
>>21762865
>>21762869
>>21762888
>>21762892
You are retarded.

>>21762775
>>21762769
>>21762768
>>21762755
>>21762747
>>21762736
>>21762734
>>21762725
>>21762722
>>21762719
>>21762705
>>21762696
>>21762688
>>21762677
>>21762669
>>21762666
>>21762660
>>21762647
>>21762645
>>21762587
>>21762571
>>21762532
>>21762520
>>21762503
>>21762319
>>21758425
>>21758436
>>21758453
>>21758488
>>21758508
>>21758509
>>21758511
>>21758535
>>21758603
>>21762784
>>21762787
>>21762809
>>21762807
>>21758508
>>21758488
>>21758453
>>21758436
>>21758425
>>21758674
>>21758728
>>21762834
>>21762841
>>21762825
>>21762823
>>21762107
>>21762098
>>21762062
>>21762054
>>21762030
>>21762858
>>21762849
>>21762845
>>21762841
>>21762865
>>21762869
>>21762888
>>21762892
>>21762899
>>21762902
>>21761677
>>21761734

>>21762869
First off, there is not "social value". There is only market value, which btw the cost of production doesn't factor into it. The cost of production only factors in whether or not I make a profit out of it. It's entirely based on supply and demand.
Second, no, according to Marxist theory I can only extract surplus value if some worker has injected magical labor substance in it. The fell tree has no value according to Marxist dogma so I should just throw it away because, remember, "all value is created by labour". Kek.